Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Two pages, and we haven't answered the most important question: is the high school football team undefeated or is it not? That will determine our Christian forgiveness levels.

Undefeated and the bad news came out on a bye week, just as God demanded.

Posted
14 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Undefeated and the bad news came out on a bye week, just as God demanded.

Oh, shit, well, in that case, what are we even talking about? Diddle away.

Posted
On 10/17/2025 at 10:22 AM, Lamar said:

Celina ISD parents packed an emergency school board meeting Thursday night after the arrest of middle school football coach and teacher Caleb Elliott, the son of longtime Celina head football coach Bill Elliott.

According to a newly obtained arrest warrant, investigators say the 26-year-old recorded several boys in the locker room during school hours. The warrant states that 12 photos were recovered from Elliott's phone — all described as meeting the criteria of child pornography and showing young boys in various states of dress and undress.

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/celina-parents-react-teacher-coach-child-pornography-charge-emergency-board-meeting/

 

On 10/17/2025 at 10:34 AM, Beau Vine said:

Holy fuck, Bill Elliott is a god in that town.  

So I've been seeing this story all over the TV news up here and I don't believe it was mentioned that he was Celina HC's son!

Posted (edited)
On 10/17/2025 at 11:27 AM, TwiceHorn said:

It's not a 100% correlation, but it's strong.  Those who perpetrate child sexual abuse are often the products of child sexual abuse.  That doesn't necessarily mean at the hands of parents, but it probably does mean relatives or close friends.

And I'm pretty sure that correlation applies to "hands-on" abuse and I would be wary of extending that to this type of thing.  There's a tendency to do that that I am not sure is warranted.

I think it important to point out some distinctions. 

First, crime data shows being sexually abused does not make one more likely to become an abusers. The low hanging fruit on the data is that female children are abused at much higher rates yet abuser are far more frequently men. Many men convicted of child SA claim to be victims, but there is often no evidence to support these claims. It is theorized they make these claims to garner sympathy. 

I point it out as the myth of abused male children frequently becoming abusers has so frequently been resold that the children themselves face double the issues in potentially reporting the abuse. That isn't at all to say there aren't victims that become abusers but the data doesn't support that a victim of child sexual abuse is more likely to become a csa themselves unless very specific additional items also exist. (Additional physical abuse, female sexual predation of a male child, other additional types of abuse such as neglect and psychological abuse)

Further more, that claim re-victimizes a male if he wants to come out about his abuse later in life. It's terrible than such a stigma has been placed, unfairly and inaccurately, on male child sex abuse victims.

One of many papers

More Data

Pay wall article

A in depth and more recent paper

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
On 10/19/2025 at 11:08 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I hate to think of degrees of horribleness of some crimes but filming the child porn, like what this coach is being accused, would seem to be much worse than possessing it. To be clear, possessing it is unthinkably bad in itself.

on a side note, do high schools with $25m stadiums still have group shower areas? Looking back on it, I think it’s odd to ask young people to shower together especially when the school can afford otherwise.

It is, criminally, and also, I think, morally.  

This isn't really porn, though  in the sense that the victims aren't engaged in sexual activity.

Posted
On 10/17/2025 at 1:44 PM, Scheiss Meister said:

Unfortunately, the young man who reported it had better just move to another town.  If you are familiar with small town football dynamics, you know that he will be found out and persecuted until he leaves town or dies.

Peanutgate in lake Travis didn’t even involve sex and the kid had to leave town if I’m not mistaken. Honestly, I do love football, but our societal priorities are all outta whack. 

  • Like 2
Posted
Peanutgate in lake Travis didn’t even involve sex and the kid had to leave town if I’m not mistaken. Honestly, I do love football, but our societal priorities are all outta whack. 

This. The victims will be punished here, because they broke the code and didn’t “keep it in the family.”
Posted
8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is, criminally, and also, I think, morally.  

This isn't really porn, though  in the sense that the victims aren't engaged in sexual activity.

First, certainly morally I agree with you but criminally I'm torn. Mainly because those in possession of CP are the very people who create the market for and thus the causation of the production of the material. So I'm certainly not giving the owners/consumers of CP a pass, but is it equally criminal to own as it is to actually film or photograph, and distribute the CP? That's not an easy yes answer for me, but I wish both served more severe sentences.

As to whether or not it was porn in this case, it brings up the very old semantic argument regarding the definition of porn. If one considers it material intended to stimulate someone sexually, I would argue taking pictures of children for the purpose of stimulating oneself meets that criteria. I certainly don't agree that just pictures/photographs without sexual activity is never porn. I mean, is Hustler magazine porn? I don't want to competelt derail the thread with a very old argument but in my book, taking and/or possession of naked pics of children with or without sexual activity is absolutely CP and should be prosecuted and adjudicated as such. Should it be worse when there is sexual activity or heavier punishment CP? I'd be good with that.

Posted
On 10/18/2025 at 10:44 AM, TwiceHorn said:

This is one thing that grinds my gears.  Child sexual abusers of the hands-on variety almost inevitably get taken into state criminal systems and inevitably get lower sentences than those who get internet material (thus the federal hook) and get into the federal system.

The states are way too lenient on this stuff and the feds way too harsh on a lesser crime.

He's lucky he didn't get caught using an app or emailing/iming/uploading his stuff.

Counterpoint: the feds are exactly as harsh as they need to be. 
 

I truly don’t get the desire to let people like this rehabilitate in our communities. Truly glad if they are sorry and changed; you can demonstrate that in prison. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Counterpoint: the feds are exactly as harsh as they need to be. 
 

I truly don’t get the desire to let people like this rehabilitate in our communities. Truly glad if they are sorry and changed; you can demonstrate that in prison. 

You've expressed these notions before in other contexts.

They do, eventually, get out of prison and, as things currently stand, almost no rehabilitation occurs in our prisons.  So, they're rehabilitating in "our communities" however you want to slice it.  And they are also rehabilitating from the damage that prison does to them, including likely being unable to support themselves.

Do you favor life sentences or the death penalty for all crimes where you don't want people "rehabilitating in the community"?

Also, the latest figures show that non-contact sex offenders have among the lowest recidivism rates of criminals, despite a post-conviction regime that is virtually designed to imprison them again for technical (non-sexual, non-criminal) probation violations.

Also, one of the things that is most disgusting about the criminal regime at the federal level is that it was entirely implemented by Congress and the US Sentencing Commission has almost no role in establishing sentencing guidelines.  And one of the major pieces of legislation in the area is named after a D-list celebrity.

Performative work by Congress in a moral panic at its finest.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

I think it important to point out some distinctions. 

First, crime data shows being sexually abused does not make one more likely to become an abusers. The low hanging fruit on the data is that female children are abused at much higher rates yet abuser are far more frequently men. Many men convicted of child SA claim to be victims, but there is often no evidence to support these claims. It is theorized they make these claims to garner sympathy. 

I point it out as the myth of abused male children frequently becoming abusers has so frequently been resold that the children themselves face double the issues in potentially reporting the abuse. That isn't at all to say there aren't victims that become abusers but the data doesn't support that a victim of child sexual abuse is more likely to become a csa themselves unless very specific additional items also exist. (Additional physical abuse, female sexual predation of a male child, other additional types of abuse such as neglect and psychological abuse)

Further more, that claim re-victimizes a male if he wants to come out about his abuse later in life. It's terrible than such a stigma has been placed, unfairly and inaccurately, on male child sex abuse victims.

One of many papers

More Data

Pay wall article

A in depth and more recent paper

As a child who was removed from their bio parents' home because of abuse, IDGAF what their past was.  They own the present as adults.

As a parent, I don't want them anywhere near kids, once it is discovered that they abuse.  That ain't to go all Salem witch trials, but he is in possession of shit he shouldn't be.  Lock him up for life.  

Edited by Iceman
  • Like 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You've expressed these notions before in other contexts.

They do, eventually, get out of prison and, as things currently stand, almost no rehabilitation occurs in our prisons.  So, they're rehabilitating in "our communities" however you want to slice it.  And they are also rehabilitating from the damage that prison does to them, including likely being unable to support themselves.

Do you favor life sentences or the death penalty for all crimes where you don't want people "rehabilitating in the community"?

Also, the latest figures show that non-contact sex offenders have among the lowest recidivism rates of criminals, despite a post-conviction regime that is virtually designed to imprison them again for technical (non-sexual, non-criminal) probation violations.

Also, one of the things that is most disgusting about the criminal regime at the federal level is that it was entirely implemented by Congress and the US Sentencing Commission has almost no role in establishing sentencing guidelines.  And one of the major pieces of legislation in the area is named after a D-list celebrity.

Performative work by Congress in a moral panic at its finest.

 

I generally favor much longer sentences, not sure about life. And for sure once someone has more than one conviction.  The data back me up: most crime is done by a small number of people over and over. And, mass incarceration brings with it reduced crime rates. 
 

I don’t really believe in rehabilitation. It’s entirely theoretical to me. You are either capable of punching a woman in her face for a handbag or you aren’t. You either see robbing houses as a life choice or you dont. You either want to film young kids in the shower or you don’t.  
 

I do think people generally age out of certain types crimes. I could get behind some data that had age-based released dates. 
 

The thing is I don’t give a shit about predators and criminals, I truly don’t. Mercy to them is all too often injustice to the innocent. They aren’t owed anything at all. If hear someone has a life sentence for his third robbery, it never crosses my mind to care about what he’s feeling.  When I read that some guy traded kiddie porn on the internet and got 38 years in the federal pen (happened to someone I worked with briefly), I don’t even pause for a moment. I’m really glad he’s gone somewhere and I don’t have to think about what he might be up to. 

That, to my mind, is the point of incarceration: stashing the predators somewhere far away. It’s not retributive. I just heavily bias my own safety and well-being far, far beyond the well-being of anyone who has demonstrably violated rje social contract. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I generally favor much longer sentences, not sure about life. And for sure once someone has more than one conviction.  The data back me up: most crime is done by a small number of people over and over. And, mass incarceration brings with it reduced crime rates. 
 

I don’t really believe in rehabilitation. It’s entirely theoretical to me. You are either capable of punching a woman in her face for a handbag or you aren’t. You either see robbing houses as a life choice or you dont. You either want to film young kids in the shower or you don’t.  
 

I do think people generally age out of certain types crimes. I could get behind some data that had age-based released dates. 
 

The thing is I don’t give a shit about predators and criminals, I truly don’t. Mercy to them is all too often injustice to the innocent. They aren’t owed anything at all. If hear someone has a life sentence for his third robbery, it never crosses my mind to care about what he’s feeling.  When I read that some guy traded kiddie porn on the internet and got 38 years in the federal pen (happened to someone I worked with briefly), I don’t even pause for a moment. I’m really glad he’s gone somewhere and I don’t have to think about what he might be up to. 

That, to my mind, is the point of incarceration: stashing the predators somewhere far away. It’s not retributive. I just heavily bias my own safety and well-being far, far beyond the well-being of anyone who has demonstrably violated rje social contract. 

I might could get on board with recidivist long sentences, but I think most of our criminal justice policy needs a hard rethink.

I don't think our incarceration rates can possibly say anything good about our criminal justice policy.

Non-contact child pr0n offenses are a microcosm of our criminal justice policy where moral outrage displaces rationality.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
15 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don’t really believe in rehabilitation. It’s entirely theoretical to me. You are either capable of punching a woman in her face for a handbag or you aren’t. You either see robbing houses as a life choice or you dont. You either want to film young kids in the shower or you don’t.  

You either can stop drinking or you can't  . . . .

The above is what got me interested in this whole area.  Alcoholics and addicts rehabilitate and in the process leave behind a lot of morally questionable if not reprehensible moral choices.

A lot of crimes are driven by addiction or other psychological problems that can be "rehabilitated."

Posted
17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think our incarceration rates can possibly say anything good about our criminal justice policy.

 

Too late to edit.  But our incarceration rate may say something about the American people, who I am coming to understand are a worse group than I ever comprehended.  But that's not because of their justice-involvement.

Posted
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You either can stop drinking or you can't  . . . .

The above is what got me interested in this whole area.  Alcoholics and addicts rehabilitate and in the process leave behind a lot of morally questionable if not reprehensible moral choices.

A lot of crimes are driven by addiction or other psychological problems that can be "rehabilitated."

See here’s the thing, someone else being an an alcoholic or having addictions isn’t affecting me.  As long as it’s not spilling over and harming people who haven’t volunteered to be a part of it, I’m indifferent to it. 
 

But yes, if someone drives drunk and kills someone then I’m wholly unconcerned with giving them a second chance. 


And the thing is, the moral preening and saying things like “Justice involved people” instead of “criminals” is the cheapest kind of empathy. It comes at no actual cost to the people who engage in it. The chances are minuscule that an individual drunk driver who gets short probation crashes into the judge or prosecutor.  But the cost to the family he kills is—everything. 
 

The judges and prosecutors who kept letting that guy go in North Carolina had no skin in the game. They weren’t going to encounter him on a subway at night.  Their empathy was cheap to them, because Iryna Z and her family footed the bill. 
 

And that’s how I look at all of this stuff.  This guy in Celina, if I was told— in two years, he’ll be next door to you. How would I feel? This drunk driver, his route home from favorite happy hour overlaps with your teenager’s route home from soccer practice? How do I feel?

 

If I wouldn’t want it for me, its cheap empathy to give it to people I don’t know. 

Posted
Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

See here’s the thing, someone else being an an alcoholic or having addictions isn’t affecting me.

Neither are most convicted criminals, or unconvicted criminals (the lot of them being justice involved), but that could easily change, both in the addict and criminal affecting you, personally.  But they do affect society as a whole in the social cost of their crime, the social cost of their incarceration, and the social cost of their being essentially wards of the state after they are eventually released into the community.

And I'm not talking about drunk drivers, I'm talking about addicts that do other crimes.

I'm not even going to dignify your criticism of "justice involved" people.  

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Non-contact child pr0n offenses are a microcosm of our criminal justice policy where moral outrage displaces rationality.

I interpret your use of moral outrage here as a perjorative. I don't buy that. Looking at child porn is outrageous and should be harshly punished.

It is entirely rational to remove these people from society. Their brains are broken. I don't believe they are retrievable. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bidi Bidi Bom Bom said:

I interpret your use of moral outrage here as a perjorative. I don't buy that. Looking at child porn is outrageous and should be harshly punished.

It is entirely rational to remove these people from society. Their brains are broken. I don't believe they are retrievable. 

You just made my point for me.  I did not say the moral outrage was uncalled for.  But it replaces rational thought, which is pretty common in our criminal justice policy.

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I might could get on board with recidivist long sentences, but I think most of our criminal justice policy needs a hard rethink.

I don't think our incarceration rates can possibly say anything good about our criminal justice policy.

Non-contact child pr0n offenses are a microcosm of our criminal justice policy where moral outrage displaces rationality.

Child abusers are a threat. Every day. 
 

Marijuana possessors? Nope. 
 

I agree on the prison rethink, but not for real threats to society. They are what prisons are for. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You just made my point for me.  I did not say the moral outrage was uncalled for.  But it replaces rational thought, which is pretty common in our criminal justice policy.

Forget it Jake, it's America 

Posted
19 hours ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

What would compel you to shove a broomstick up someones ass?

@NowThis hasn't posted here in years so I don't think you're going to find the answer you're looking for.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Forget it Jake, it's America 

I know I'm not winning any hearts and minds here, but I am pretty uncomfortable with most aspects of our sentencing regime, particularly at the federal level.

And, as I said, I think child pr0n offenses, other than production, are a microcosm of what's wrong with it.  Dime store psychology and moral outrage displace everything else.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Neither are most convicted criminals, or unconvicted criminals (the lot of them being justice involved), but that could easily change, both in the addict and criminal affecting you, personally.  But they do affect society as a whole in the social cost of their crime, the social cost of their incarceration, and the social cost of their being essentially wards of the state after they are eventually released into the community.

And I'm not talking about drunk drivers, I'm talking about addicts that do other crimes.

I'm not even going to dignify your criticism of "justice involved" people.  

Yes, criminality does incur a social cost and on balance I prefer to pay the costs associated with incarcerating criminals and protecting future as opposed to the social costs of serving criminals interests.  This stuff always cracks me up. Oh, now society is on the hook for the upkeep of a habitual thief who is in jail? Ok, well, society was on the hook for him anyway.  It’s not like a productive career got derailed. Picking up trash on the side of the road in exchange for three hots and a cot is a net win.

Yes, I reject “Justice involved” and all similar attempts to center criminals— thieves, rapists, murderers, etc— instead of their victims and to frame them as passive recipients of the criminal Justice system. It’s a neat rhetorical trick that I completely refuse to engage in.  No one is a character in a script that’s being written and it’s not a travesty to ascribe to people the ageny they demonstrate through their actions. I won’t play the game. 

Posted

Downloading, looking at, trading, and creating sexual abuse material is an inherently irrational act. The ancients would correctly frame people who do it as allowing their passions to control them. Outrage and fear is a natural and healthy reaction to irrational, harmful behavior when demonstrated by others. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Yes, criminality does incur a social cost and on balance I prefer to pay the costs associated with incarcerating criminals and protecting future as opposed to the social costs of serving criminals interests.  This stuff always cracks me up. Oh, now society is on the hook for the upkeep of a habitual thief who is in jail? Ok, well, society was on the hook for him anyway.  It’s not like a productive career got derailed. Picking up trash on the side of the road in exchange for three hots and a cot is a net win.

Yes, I reject “Justice involved” and all similar attempts to center criminals— thieves, rapists, murderers, etc— instead of their victims and to frame them as passive recipients of the criminal Justice system. It’s a neat rhetorical trick that I completely refuse to engage in.  No one is a character in a script that’s being written and it’s not a travesty to ascribe to people the ageny they demonstrate through their actions. I won’t play the game. 

I am genuinely unsure of what you're trying to say. Are you saying that rehabilitation of criminals is a useless endeavor, or that we should keep all kinds of criminals incarcerated for life? Is being a thief an equivalent level of criminality as a rapist or murderer? Not attacking you here, I just feel like this is really disjointed and I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

Posted
22 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Downloading, looking at, trading, and creating sexual abuse material is an inherently irrational act. The ancients would correctly frame people who do it as allowing their passions to control them. Outrage and fear is a natural and healthy reaction to irrational, harmful behavior when demonstrated by others. 

Didn't say it was rational.  So is watching scat porn and driving drunk.  So is burglarizing a Walgreens to get or pay for drugs. Nor did I say that moral outrage is unwarranted.

But moral outrage tends to displace rational thought about what we're doing with big chunks of our criminal population.  You can go from relatively simple cases like addicts and drug users/possessors, whose irrational acts have mostly been decriminalized, to other areas of criminality with a large psychological component.  And some, like drug dealing, that have little or no psychological component at all, and might even be considered rational.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I am genuinely unsure of what you're trying to say. Are you saying that rehabilitation of criminals is a useless endeavor, or that we should keep all kinds of criminals incarcerated for life? Is being a thief an equivalent level of criminality as a rapist or murderer? Not attacking you here, I just feel like this is really disjointed and I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

I really do think that rehabilitation of habitual and serious criminals is mostly a useless endeavor.  (I am removing purely drug offenses from this convo, which I am happy to discuss elsewhere). Especially as practiced. I think that things like three strikes laws (tbh, you can increase this to five strikes or eight strikes) mostly capture that population and that while inevitably it won’t be perfect, it will be better than leniency at removing the most disruptive and predatory elements from society.

 

And yes— white collar predators, I lump in with this.  My bit of Texas lore is that I am related to Billy Sol Estes.  Not like a core relative, but he did appear at some family events.  He was incorrigible.  He had no other way of life, no conception of existence, other than via scamming and stealing from people.  He was a con artist to the end and belonged in jail for life. 
 

 I’m very interested in age-based data, because I think it will show that people don’t rehabilitated— they age out of certain behaviors. Releasing that population with support I can get behind. 
 

For certain serious violent and sexual crimes I am one hundred percent fine with “one strike.” I think all convicted rapists should go away for life. I think if you kill a cop or a child, you should never walk free. I am uninterested in the circumstances that led you there. 

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I really do think that rehabilitation of habitual and serious criminals is mostly a useless endeavor.  (I am removing purely drug offenses from this convo, which I am happy to discuss elsewhere). Especially as practiced. I think that things like three strikes laws (tbh, you can increase this to five strikes or eight strikes) mostly capture that population and that while inevitably it won’t be perfect, it will be better than leniency at removing the most disruptive and predatory elements from society.

 

And yes— white collar predators, I lump in with this.  My bit of Texas lore is that I am related to Billy Sol Estes.  Not like a core relative, but he did appear at some family events.  He was incorrigible.  He had no other way of life, no conception of existence, other than via scamming and stealing from people.  He was a con artist to the end and belonged in jail for life. 
 

 I’m very interested in age-based data, because I think it will show that people don’t rehabilitated— they age out of certain behaviors. Releasing that population with support I can get behind. 
 

For certain serious violent and sexual crimes I am one hundred percent fine with “one strike.” I think all convicted rapists should go away for life. I think if you kill a cop or a child, you should never walk free. I am uninterested in the circumstances that led you there. 

You've given it some thought, so I commend that.  I admit that I don't have any real solutions, but I ask that people not knee jerk.

There are absolutely incorrigible criminals out there of all kinds and the only solution may be lifetime incarceration/incapacitation.  But that's not all of them or even the majority.

I do think things like "drug courts," "veterans courts," and "first offender" programs are a step in the right direction.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
46 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

  Dime store psychology and moral outrage displace everything else.

Would love to see serious analysis of rehabilitation of sexual abusers of children.  We can call it dimestore psychology or write it off as a anecdotal experience; but where are the testimonials from "former" child predators?

They belong in prison.  IDGAF about their mental state afterwards.  They made their statement to society that they can't handle freedom.  No time limit.  No parole.  No hand wringing.  Nothing but time.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Would love to see serious analysis of rehabilitation of sexual abusers of children.  We can call it dimestore psychology or write it off as a anecdotal experience; but where are the testimonials from "former" child predators?

They belong in prison.  IDGAF about their mental state afterwards.  They made their statement to society that they can't handle freedom.  No time limit.  No parole.  No hand wringing.  Nothing but time.

Note that my "concern" such as it is, is not with hands-on offenders, but non-contact offenders.

I can't disagree about actual child molesters.  But then there's that Oregon State pitcher.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I really do think that rehabilitation of habitual and serious criminals is mostly a useless endeavor.  (I am removing purely drug offenses from this convo, which I am happy to discuss elsewhere). Especially as practiced. I think that things like three strikes laws (tbh, you can increase this to five strikes or eight strikes) mostly capture that population and that while inevitably it won’t be perfect, it will be better than leniency at removing the most disruptive and predatory elements from society.

 

And yes— white collar predators, I lump in with this.  My bit of Texas lore is that I am related to Billy Sol Estes.  Not like a core relative, but he did appear at some family events.  He was incorrigible.  He had no other way of life, no conception of existence, other than via scamming and stealing from people.  He was a con artist to the end and belonged in jail for life. 
 

 I’m very interested in age-based data, because I think it will show that people don’t rehabilitated— they age out of certain behaviors. Releasing that population with support I can get behind. 
 

For certain serious violent and sexual crimes I am one hundred percent fine with “one strike.” I think all convicted rapists should go away for life. I think if you kill a cop or a child, you should never walk free. I am uninterested in the circumstances that led you there. 

Interesting, that makes me wonder if my paternal grandfather ever discussed the Estes fiasco with LBJ, I'm sure they probably did. I wish he was alive so I could ask him. He was pretty good friends with LBJ back in his post-presidency days.

I think, certainly, that some offenders are just as you describe - incorrigible. I've known a few in my lifetime as well.

I don't think we (the US) engage in any kind of serious rehabilitation efforts and that colors people's perspectives on rehabilitation as a possibility in general. 

I think I'm certainly ok with rapists/child molesters/murderers getting a single strike, but I certainly don't agree with your attempt to conflate child and cop killers. There is basically never a reason to kill a child, there could be any number of valid reasons to kill a cop, unless you believe that cops are infallible arbiters of justice for some weird reason. The circumstances, in that case, do actually matter. 

Posted

Huh.  All this story really tells me is that the dynamic of "power and politics trump the rule of law/justice" is even more egregious than it has been in the past.  The very same folks who yell from the highest mountain that "pedophiles are the greatest threat we face!" are also the folks who do the most to protect pedos when they are affiliated with their team: football, political, cultural, religious, etc.

The "he's a good christian man" defense is a 100% "get out of jail free" card, now more than ever.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I know I'm not winning any hearts and minds here, but I am pretty uncomfortable with most aspects of our sentencing regime, particularly at the federal level.

And, as I said, I think child pr0n offenses, other than production, are a microcosm of what's wrong with it.  Dime store psychology and moral outrage displace everything else.

I agree with the first part but not the second. Consuming child pornography is heinous and should be punished more harshly imo. We overly imprison people for drugs and petty crimes even some gun crimes and underpunish sex crimes including against children.

As for Billy Badass over there it’s pretty clear it’s just “empathy is bad” in his world and a criminal is a criminal is a criminal. There’s so much at play from case to case. It’s not like people are either prone to commit robbery or not, a lot of it is out of desperation based on really bad circumstances, or as others have pointed out, addiction issues, which can be remedied. Some people are just bad, some are hopeless, but it’s insane to just lump them all together and say fuck it for those who can be helped. Even if the success rate is low it’s a worthy endeavor.

Posted
On 10/17/2025 at 12:02 PM, Js1 said:

Wow, the Celina Middle School football team had a drag queen for a coach? 

Nah. The problem is he saw a gay character on Disney+, so we’ll nuke Portland, and he’ll be back in the locker room by Thursday. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I agree with the first part but not the second. Consuming child pornography is heinous and should be punished more harshly imo. We overly imprison people for drugs and petty crimes even some gun crimes and underpunish sex crimes including against children.

As for Billy Badass over there it’s pretty clear it’s just “empathy is bad” in his world and a criminal is a criminal is a criminal. There’s so much at play from case to case. It’s not like people are either prone to commit robbery or not, a lot of it is out of desperation based on really bad circumstances, or as others have pointed out, addiction issues, which can be remedied. Some people are just bad, some are hopeless, but it’s insane to just lump them all together and say fuck it for those who can be helped. Even if the success rate is low it’s a worthy endeavor.

A low success rate means future victims. Empathy for habitual criminals is cruelty to their future victims. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

A low success rate means future victims. Empathy for habitual criminals is cruelty to their future victims. 

Wait are you thinking that “rehabilitation” means just let everyone go or don’t jail people at all? That’s tracks I guess. 

Edited by 'stache
Posted
Just now, 'stache said:

Wait are you thinking that “rehabilitation” means just let everyone go or don’t jail people them at all? That’s tracks I guess. 

And, how can you predict who is going to be habitual?  Once they are habitual or recidivist, I can't argue much with longer incarceration.

My overall thought is that sentences are, by and large, too long.  And I'm very interested in diversion programs for first offenders or those in "vulnerable" (probably not the right word) populations.

Posted
1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Wait are you thinking that “rehabilitation” means just let everyone go or don’t jail people them at all? That’s tracks I guess. 

I have never seen an agreed upon, demonstratively effective definition of rehabilitation although shorter and fewer sentences are nearly always assumed to be desirable.  I question that assumption.  I think the data which shows how relatively few offenders are responsible for an overwhelming amount of arrests and offenses points to the idea that longer, targeted incarceration can be very effective. 

Like I said— three strikes could easily be five or eight. It’d capture that population. 

Posted
Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

I have never seen an agreed upon, demonstratively effective definition of rehabilitation although shorter and fewer sentences are nearly always assumed to be desirable.  I question that assumption.  I think the data which shows how relatively few offenders are responsible for an overwhelming amount of arrests and offenses points to the idea that longer, targeted incarceration can be very effective. 

Like I said— three strikes could easily be five or eight. It’d capture that population. 

Considering the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world, is it your opinion that Americans are just inherently worse people per capita than places like say Scandinavia, and that more people in jail for longer sentences is a solution?

Posted
1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I have never seen an agreed upon, demonstratively effective definition of rehabilitation although shorter and fewer sentences are nearly always assumed to be desirable.  I question that assumption.  I think the data which shows how relatively few offenders are responsible for an overwhelming amount of arrests and offenses points to the idea that longer, targeted incarceration can be very effective. 

Like I said— three strikes could easily be five or eight. It’d capture that population. 

Well, you seem to be arguing that longer sentences are appropriate, while also acknowledging that the majority, maybe the vast majority, of incarcerated are not the problem.

Then you say "targeted incarceration."  Which would seem to involve a rather careful analysis of who really are the "problem children," rather than just increasing the length of sentencing across the board, which has been the solution to date.

Posted
8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Considering the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world, is it your opinion that Americans are just inherently worse people per capita than places like say Scandinavia, and that more people in jail for longer sentences is a solution?

While being ignorant of actual facts, I do wonder if the incarceration rate delta is driven by drug laws and punishments that are more harsh than in the rest of the world.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
52 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

  The very same folks who yell from the highest mountain that "pedophiles are the greatest threat we face!" are also the folks who do the most to protect pedos when they are affiliated with their team: football, political, cultural, religious, etc.

 

I yell it a lot, and I openly admit it is most likely a product of my childhood, and my abuse/ neglect was NOT of the sexual variety.  Are pedos the greatest threat we face- depends if you are the victim or not, I guess.

The closest thing  for me in a sports realm is when it was rumored that Tech was considering hiring Briles.  I stated that I opposed it and that I would not support the program at all if he was hired.

Posted
Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

While being ignorant of actual facts, I do wonder if the incarceration rate delta is driven by drug laws and punishments that are more harsh than in the rest of the world.  

Yes. 

Also people that conflate punishment with rehabilitation.

Also the privatization of the prison systems.

Also the school-to-prison pipeline in predominantly black, brown, and poor communities. 

Also, as a society, we strive to be as cruel as possible, and we derive joy out of others' suffering. 

We are the antithesis of Jesus' teachings. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

While being ignorant of actual facts, I do wonder if the incarceration rate delta is driven by drug laws and punishments that are more harsh than in the rest of the world.  

Bingo.

When you realize that the primary purpose of our incarceration system is to keep black and brown folks "in line," it all makes sense.  Our prison system has only as a tertiary or lower purpose actual "public safety."

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...